tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-77071190715092995652017-07-24T11:54:01.908-04:00Natural Law/Natural ReligionWal Fordhttps://plus.google.com/116844492046071527335noreply@blogger.comBlogger51125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7707119071509299565.post-41229521424848244192014-04-22T16:00:00.002-04:002014-04-22T16:00:53.300-04:00The Full-Court Press Against the Boy Scouts Continues<a href="http://www.wnd.com/2014/04/california-courts-move-to-blacklist-boy-scouts/#EoJBfgZrFMrCu7q6.99" target="_blank"><b>California Courts Move to Blacklist Boy Scouts</b></a><br /><br /><i>A move is under way in the California court system to ban judges from belonging to the Boys Scouts of America because the youth organization discriminates against homosexuals.<br /><br />A proposed rule change by the Supreme Court Advisory Committee on The Code of Judicial Ethics would make the BSA no longer “excepted from the category of organizations that practice ‘invidious discrimination’ on the basis of sexual orientation.”<br /><br />Last May, the BSA’s National Council voted to allow acknowledged homosexuals to be in the program but not in leadership. It’s the ban on “gay” leaders that has prompted the California courts’ action.</i><br />========================================= <br />Commentary by walford<br /><br />Does this mean that judges whose religious beliefs [e.g. observant Christians, Jews, Muslims] do not comport with Secular Humanist orthodoxy are by definition unfit to serve on the bench?<br /><br />Let us remember that this full-court press against the BSA [I was a Cub Scout and Boy Scout] is not about suddenly changing its policy to disallow homosexuals being put in charge of children whose parents might not share their views of their sexuality.<br /><br />This sanction is for NOT changing to what Our Betters have now decided is the 'correct' policy. It is punishment for non-conformance with what is first and foremost a personal value system. That certainly applies as to what is deemed appropriate behavior around other people's children.<br /><br />If some people decide to found a homosexual-friendly childrens’ group, I am quite sure the BSA and their supporters would not utter a word of objection, much less try to obstruct them from associating as they see fit according to their personal values.<br /><br />Why cannot those who do not want their children taught [that homosexuality is what the elites say it is] have that same choice, if we are supposed to be pro-choice. Are Americans entitled to raise their children according to their own values or is this now subject to the approval of the Collective as proclaimed by an arrogant elite?<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml><w:WordDocument><w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel><w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery>0</w:DisplayHorizontalDrawingGridEvery><w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery>2</w:DisplayVerticalDrawingGridEvery><w:DocumentKind>DocumentNotSpecified</w:DocumentKind><w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing>7.8</w:DrawingGridVerticalSpacing><w:View>Normal</w:View><w:Compatibility></w:Compatibility><w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom></w:WordDocument></xml><![endif]--><br /><div class="Section0" style="layout-grid: 14.3500pt;"><div class="p0" style="margin-bottom: 0pt; margin-top: 0pt;"><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12.0000pt; mso-spacerun: 'yes';"></span><span style="font-family: 'Times New Roman'; font-size: 12.0000pt; mso-spacerun: 'yes';"></span></div></div>Wal Fordhttps://plus.google.com/116844492046071527335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7707119071509299565.post-81563974835341900352014-01-17T17:33:00.001-05:002014-08-13T19:02:18.077-04:00Signature Slogans of the 12 Zodiac Signs<br /><span style="color: red;"><b>&nbsp;</b><span style="color: black;">by walford</span></span><br /><br /><span style="color: red;"><b>Aries: “HOLD MY BEER. I'M GONNA TRY SOMETHING!”</b></span><br /><span style="color: #6aa84f;">Taurus: “Because I don’t want to.”</span><br /><span style="background-color: yellow;">Gemini: “I love you. I hate you.”</span><br /><i><span style="color: blue;">Cancer: “Nobody understands me.”</span></i><br /><span style="color: red;"><b>Leo: “LOOK AT ME! LOOK AT ME!”</b></span><br /><span style="color: #6aa84f;">Virgo: “Nevermind, I’ll do it myself.”</span><br /><span style="background-color: yellow;">Libra: “But on the other hand...”</span><br /><i><span style="color: blue;">Scorpio: “No, I didn’t.”</span></i>&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /><span style="color: red;"><b>Sagittarius: “DON’T WORRY, I GOT THIS!”</b></span><br /><span style="color: #6aa84f;">Capricorn: “There are two ways of doing things: my way and the wrong way.”</span><br /><span style="background-color: yellow;">Aquarius: “I need my space.”</span><br /><span style="color: blue;"><i>Pisces: “Stop it! JUST STOP IT!!”</i></span>Wal Fordhttps://plus.google.com/116844492046071527335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7707119071509299565.post-56624485257404332012013-07-29T16:07:00.004-04:002014-02-11T16:34:57.590-05:00The Dangerous Cultural Divide: Race vs, Rule-of-Law<span style="color: blue;"><b><a href="http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/07/29/3529181/trayvons-mom-stand-your-ground.html" target="_blank">Trayvon’s mom: Stand Your Ground helped Zimmerman get away with murder</a></b></span><br /><br />The mother of Trayvon Martin said Monday that she believed Florida’s Stand Your Ground law played a role in her son’s shooting death, but she wasn’t ready to support a boycott of the state for not changing the self-defense law.<br /><br />“The thing about this law is I just think it assisted the person who killed my son to get away with murder.”<br /><br />=========================<br />Commentary by walford<br /><br />I think many [including Trayvon’s Mother] who think that Zimmerman should have been convicted believe that it is perfectly reasonable to attack someone merely because they are watching -- and even following -- you go through a neighborhood [with a history of burglaries] as you are casing houses while wearing a garment that obscures your face. To run away or call the police would likely be considered a sign of weakness in Trayvon’s milieu. <br /><br />Let us consider that such people consider being “disrespected” to be sufficient grounds to take another person’s life. But there are apparently strict protocols of chivalry that apply to victims of violent thugs -- particularly depending upon the demographics of the parties involved. For example, to use a weapon to defend oneself from an unarmed attacker is unacceptable in the <span style="color: blue;"><b><a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1994/05/the-code-of-the-streets/306601/" target="_blank">Code of the Street</a></b></span>.<br /><br />To handle the inevitable conflicts that will arise with others peacefully and civilly is beyond their capacity. They expect others to adhere to their might-makes-right value system.<br /><br /><br />This is at the root of the objections of many to Stand Your Ground laws. If you are being attacked -- particularly by a member of a Designated Victim Group -- you are expected to take your beating and possibly be killed if you violate the Code. In this case, the violation was watching somebody possibly casing houses for burglary.<br /><br />This is not the value system of most Americans. To accommodate it would be to surrender to violence and savagery. Law-abiding citizens are armed in this country and rightfully so. Expect to be shot if you are <span style="color: blue;"><b><a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/07/12/bernhard-goetz-on-george-zimmerman-the-same-thing-is-happening.html" target="_blank">waving sharpened screwdrivers</a></b></span> in our faces on the subway — or beating our heads into concrete.<br /><br />Not initiating violence is always an option if this value system is not appealing.<br /><br />If those who are not capable of behaving like civilized human beings engage in behaviors that ultimately costs their lives, I daresay the world is well rid of them.<br /><br /><br /><br />Wal Fordhttps://plus.google.com/116844492046071527335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7707119071509299565.post-47237291044966459912013-07-05T12:12:00.000-04:002013-07-05T12:14:07.078-04:00Eating Our Own While the Battle Rages: Christian Sectarianism<span data-ft="{&quot;tn&quot;:&quot;K&quot;}" data-reactid=".r[43aq1].[3]{comment612666798752998_6709027}.[2:0].[5:0:right].[4:1].[5:0:left].[2:1].[2:0].[2:0:2]"><span data-reactid=".r[43aq1].[3]{comment612666798752998_6709027}.[2:0].[5:0:right].[4:1].[5:0:left].[2:1].[2:0].[2:0:2].[3:0]"><span data-reactid=".r[43aq1].[3]{comment612666798752998_6709027}.[2:0].[5:0:right].[4:1].[5:0:left].[2:1].[2:0].[2:0:2].[3:0].[4:0:0]">Commentary by walford </span></span></span><br /><br /><span data-ft="{&quot;tn&quot;:&quot;K&quot;}" data-reactid=".r[43aq1].[3]{comment612666798752998_6709027}.[2:0].[5:0:right].[4:1].[5:0:left].[2:1].[2:0].[2:0:2]"><span data-reactid=".r[43aq1].[3]{comment612666798752998_6709027}.[2:0].[5:0:right].[4:1].[5:0:left].[2:1].[2:0].[2:0:2].[3:0]"><span data-reactid=".r[43aq1].[3]{comment612666798752998_6709027}.[2:0].[5:0:right].[4:1].[5:0:left].[2:1].[2:0].[2:0:2].[3:0].[4:0:0]">I am not even a Christian, but continued to be appalled at the open hostility toward Catholicism. I can understand it from the Left, but it never ceases to amaze me the self-destructive sectarian vitriol from many Protestants.</span><br data-reactid=".r[43aq1].[3]{comment612666798752998_6709027}.[2:0].[5:0:right].[4:1].[5:0:left].[2:1].[2:0].[2:0:2].[3:0].[4:0:1]" /><br data-reactid=".r[43aq1].[3]{comment612666798752998_6709027}.[2:0].[5:0:right].[4:1].[5:0:left].[2:1].[2:0].[2:0:2].[3:0].[4:0:2]" /><span data-reactid=".r[43aq1].[3]{comment612666798752998_6709027}.[2:0].[5:0:right].[4:1].[5:0:left].[2:1].[2:0].[2:0:2].[3:0].[4:0:3]">How do you think that Western civilization is going to survive the coming onslaught if a major force behind its creation and continued existence -- Christianity -- is at war with itself?</span><br data-reactid=".r[43aq1].[3]{comment612666798752998_6709027}.[2:0].[5:0:right].[4:1].[5:0:left].[2:1].[2:0].[2:0:2].[3:0].[4:0:4]" /><br data-reactid=".r[43aq1].[3]{comment612666798752998_6709027}.[2:0].[5:0:right].[4:1].[5:0:left].[2:1].[2:0].[2:0:2].[3:0].[4:0:5]" /><span data-reactid=".r[43aq1].[3]{comment612666798752998_6709027}.[2:0].[5:0:right].[4:1].[5:0:left].[2:1].[2:0].[2:0:2].[3:0].[4:0:6]">Let us remember that it was early Catholic theologians and clerics who preserved the works of the ancient world -- as well as the ability to read and write -- through the Dark Ages. </span><br data-reactid=".r[43aq1].[3]{comment612666798752998_6709027}.[2:0].[5:0:right].[4:1].[5:0:left].[2:1].[2:0].[2:0:2].[3:0].[4:0:7]" /><br data-reactid=".r[43aq1].[3]{comment612666798752998_6709027}.[2:0].[5:0:right].[4:1].[5:0:left].[2:1].[2:0].[2:0:2].[3:0].[4:0:8]" /><span data-reactid=".r[43aq1].[3]{comment612666798752998_6709027}.[2:0].[5:0:right].[4:1].[5:0:left].[2:1].[2:0].[2:0:2].[3:0].[4:0:9]">We continue to benefit from that.</span><br data-reactid=".r[43aq1].[3]{comment612666798752998_6709027}.[2:0].[5:0:right].[4:1].[5:0:left].[2:1].[2:0].[2:0:2].[3:0].[4:0:10]" /><br data-reactid=".r[43aq1].[3]{comment612666798752998_6709027}.[2:0].[5:0:right].[4:1].[5:0:left].[2:1].[2:0].[2:0:2].[3:0].[4:0:11]" /><span data-reactid=".r[43aq1].[3]{comment612666798752998_6709027}.[2:0].[5:0:right].[4:1].[5:0:left].[2:1].[2:0].[2:0:2].[3:0].[4:0:12]">The Left continues to bash the Catholic Church because they know that it is a pillar of Western Civilization and must be destroyed if our entire way of life is going to be successfully surrendered to the savages who are waiting to pick at our bones.</span></span></span>Wal Fordhttps://plus.google.com/116844492046071527335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7707119071509299565.post-1683823876131003472013-02-13T10:50:00.002-05:002013-02-13T10:50:26.748-05:00Intelligence RedistributionI think that differences in intelligence is elitist and possibly racist. Therefore intelligence [well, actually stupidity] should be re-distributed. Everyone should have a mandatory IQ test. Those who score higher than deemed necessary by the government should then have their intelligence lowered by chemical and/or surgical means.<br /><br />Of course -- as is always the case -- those in the political class who draft and enact the laws necessary to make this happen should be exempt. So too exempt should be their select friends in the media, academia and entertainment industry.<br /><br />After all, they are important people and need more of everything to do what is best for all of us. Anyone who is against this is by definition stupid, ill-informed and/or evil.<br /><br />Oh, wait. All of this has already been done by the public school system for nearly three generations.Wal Fordhttps://plus.google.com/116844492046071527335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7707119071509299565.post-41245528128557615462013-02-03T14:14:00.002-05:002013-02-03T14:14:34.972-05:00The Sickness of Western Culture: Can We Survive it?<b><a href="http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/feb/2/cultures-gradual-shift-away-moral-standards/print/" target="_blank">Culture’s shifting sands on moral standards</a></b><br />by Gilbert T. Sewell <br /><br />Sixty years ago juvenile delinquency and what to do about it suddenly drew a round of national soul searching. We no longer even use the term. We think in terms of juvenile monsters.<br /><br />Yesteryear’s hoods and troublemakers seem quaint and innocent beside today’s appalling school murders, gang rapes and teenage mayhem...<br /><br />...Put together violent, porn-saturated electronic entertainment and armed, shame-free, unparented young men. Crazy things happen...<br /><br />...Who is delinquent? A sociopath? A truant, an unwed mother, a rapist of drunken and unconscious girls, a meth addict or a mass murderer? Where does anybody rightly draw the line? <br />=============================<br />Commentary by walford<br /><br />Our species is no less subject to Nature's Laws than any other living thing. A culture can have a sickness as well and Western Civilization is very ill indeed.<br /><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Just as it is with an individual, a culture can evolve through stages and be stuck in a certain one. The Islamic World is currently in an infantile stage in which demons, spirits and ghosts drive their lives without question as the self-appointed spokesmen for the Almighty play to fear, envy, lust and other base emotions to take and hold power over others. </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Western Civilization is currently in a juvenile stage. Our technology makes us tempted to indulge in hubris as we are drunk with our capabilities, but have little concern as to the consequences.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">And just as it is with an individual, the juvenile stage is a dangerous one, because Nature brooks no disobedience of Her Laws w/o consequences.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">So our youth -- particularly those of the affluent -- is being raised to think that they are victims and entitled to do unto others. They are raised to have no investment in the world they leave behind; that there is no Order or Justice in the universe and that life is not a blessing, but merely an accident of good or bad fortune.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">The Islamic world in its infantilism has not "progressed" beyond that and may indeed succeed in surviving as they watch us destroy ourselves from within -- and bide their time.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Then, all that the so-called progressives hold dear will go the way of the dinosaur as we continue to select ourselves for extinction. Fearful of freedom and contemptuous of the majority, the Left has worked diligently to revert us to a medieval socio-economic structure in which most of us live in poverty, ignorance, disenfranchisement and oppression as we are lorded over by an arrogant elite.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">It need not be this way. Our civilization can survive and go to a mature stage in which we progress in our technology, mindful of the consequences of our choices upon ourselves and our posterity. The Founding Fathers of the United States of America got us to a good start. If the West have any chance, we would be well-advised to review their works and continue where they left off.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">Otherwise, the barbarians are not only at the gate, they have breached the perimeter.</div>Wal Fordhttps://plus.google.com/116844492046071527335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7707119071509299565.post-72166842680698534912012-11-13T16:13:00.003-05:002012-11-13T16:13:56.417-05:00Sic Semper Tyrannis<a href="http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-secession-petitions-35-of-50-states-petitioning-the-president-to-secede" target="_blank"><b><u>Obama secession petitions: 34 of 50 states petitioning the president to secede</u></b></a><br /><br /><i>It's unclear whether these petitions are a nod to dissatisfaction that some conservatives think may soon match Civil War proportion,or not. However, the utter contempt for the Obama administration indicated by this petition drive, which appears to be on its way to all fifty states, is very clear.</i><br />====================<br />Commentary by walford<br /><br />Greetings from Virginia.<br /><br />These petitions at the very least make an explicit statement that, in the aftermath of the most recent election, many of us are finding ourselves in a country that is no longer a nation. <br /><br />In its bid for power-by-any-means, the Party of Jim Crow has successfully played upon fear, envy and other base emotions selling the bill of goods that dependency and hedonism are to be exalted, while the values of freedom, self-reliance and equality under the law -- upon which the Party of Abraham Lincoln were founded -- are out-dated at best and evil at worst. People who stand for limited government and individual rights are smeared as by definition stupid, ill-informed and/or evil.<br /><br />We have a smirking, disdainful elite that is increasingly unable to conceal its contempt for the general population for whom it purports to advocate. Much of their energies are spent thwarting popular will if it cannot be manipulated via carefully managed information from the classroom, Movie Theater, T.V. screen and press. They are building a medievalist society in which the vast majority is deliberately kept poor, ignorant and disenfranchised. <br /><br />And yet they are lionized as champions of the masses.<br /><br />They consider themselves entitled to have political influence grossly disproportionate to their numbers. Much like the Machiavellian princes of pre-democratic Europe, they regard themselves superior [without having to be bothered to offer proof as to why] and therefore tasked with Divine Right the responsibility to lord over us as paternalistic tyrants -- because we cannot be trusted to see to our own economic needs and personal security. Hence, they are against anything that empowers the citizenry and for anything that fosters dependency.<br /><br />Rather than being born into this class, one gains exalted status via the political arena wherein the rules depend upon with whom you are connected. They make it clear that there is no legitimate means to garner personal economic success other than in the media, politics or the entertainment industry. They have many convinced that it is not possible to gain wealth while creating jobs in the private sector except through treachery that must be roundly punished. If people lose jobs as a result, this is blamed upon capitalist greed, not their policies. <br /><br />And there is no such thing, of course, as greed for the ability to use the coercive power of government to hold sway over others.<br /><br />It is not too hard to predict the results of the medieval barbers currently in charge prescribing more blood-letting as a cure for economic anemia. Most people don't care about politics, but they do care if they can provide for their most basic of needs as wages remain flat and the cost of living soars. There simply are not enough of “the rich” to provide for the rest of us and most still have enough pride and integrity to want to pay their own way.<br /><br />What will come of this, it is hard to say. But those of us who truly love America are not going to stand idly by and watch our country lain waste by those who demonstrably fear and loathe the Land of the Free.<br /><br />Sic Semper Tyrannis.Wal Fordhttps://plus.google.com/116844492046071527335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7707119071509299565.post-65856019282174216492012-11-08T15:26:00.000-05:002012-11-28T10:01:05.510-05:00Post-Mortem on the 2012 GOP Presidential Election Loss: Rush-bo and Huff-Po Were Wrong<br /><a href="http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/11/07/in_a_nation_of_children_santa_claus_wins" target="_blank"><b><u>In a Nation of Children, Santa Claus Wins</u></b></a><br />By Rush Limbaugh<br /><br /><i>...Mitt Romney and his family would have been the essence of exactly what this country needs.&nbsp; But what was Romney's recipe?&nbsp; Romney's recipe was the old standby: American route to success, hard work.&nbsp; That gets sneered at.&nbsp; I'm sorry.&nbsp; In a country of children where the option is Santa Claus or work, what wins?&nbsp; And say what you want, but Romney did offer a vision of traditional America.&nbsp; In his way, he put forth a great vision of traditional America, and it was rejected. It was rejected in favor of a guy who thinks that those who are working aren't doing enough to help those who aren't.&nbsp; And that resonated.</i><br /><br /><a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-burnett/top-ten-reasons-romney-lost_b_2087664.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003" target="_blank"><b><u>Top Ten Reasons Romney Lost</u></b></a><br />By Bob Burnett<br /><br /><i>...Romney had to tack to the right to secure his base and this turned off self-defined centrist voters. Obama overwhelmingly carried both liberal and centrist voters. The electorate has gotten wise to the Republican Party; they understand that they are radical conservatives -- out-of-touch with the middle class. Ultimately, that's why Romney lost. It indicates that no Republican presidential candidate would have been electable.</i><br />============================================<br />Commentary by walford<br /><br />I only agree with a small amount of both assessments. The roots of the GOP's loss in the Presidential election are deep. The NEA has had a near monopoly on our childrens' education for several generations now and its self-serving secular humanist, collectivist agenda has had its effect. The continually declining test scores stand as testament. Each succeeding generation must struggle independently to be fully informed on American history and our role in the world. Most cannot be bothered and should not be blamed for that.<br /><br />Beyond that, the Left and the Democrat Party that it dominates considers politics to be a blood sport. They play for keeps and for them, the end justifies any means. They played what in basketball is called a full-court press. They utilized their domination of the media and entertainment industry to full advantage, making sure that any facts that would undermine the Obama/Biden campaign would be suppressed and any that would harm the GOP challengers would be distorted and exaggerated. Out-right lies were not off the table.<br /><br />The moderator insinuating selective "fact-checking" in real-time during one of the debates -- thus making herself a third participant -- stands as an example. The fact that her assertions [about Obama specifically labeling the Benghazi attacks as terrorism on Sept. 12, 2012] were later debunked made no difference. Most people didn't see that because the mainstream media didn't cover it, so for most Americans, this and many other factual falsehoods -- as well as policies that have impoverished us at home and made us unsafe abroad -- simply didn’t happen.<br /><br />If a tree falls in the forest and the mainstream doesn't cover it, it doesn't make a sound. <br /><br /><center>***</center>Obama and Biden used techniques that are well-established in the advertizing and marketing industry, knowing their audience well enough to package their message targeting specific demographics. They played a non-factual campaign, preferring instead to pander to fear, envy and other base emotions. It was effective. <br /><br />For their part, the Republicans were naive, thinking that sticking to the facts in response would be sufficient. Romney and Ryan in particular were too polite when it came to challenging their opponents when they evaded exposure of their numerous flaws with respect to foreign and domestic policy. Romney failed to confront Obama and his minions touting a video that nobody had seen when the attacks were underway. The President bleated about this "horrible" video that "we had nothing to do with" six times during his Sept. 25 UN speech and also added that "the future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet of Islam." Romney failed to point out how one of the makers of video was paraded before the cameras in a handcuffed “perp-walk” a few days after the attacks, thus giving the impression that Shari’a Law is being enforced at the expense of our Constitutionally guaranteed freedom of expression.<br /><br />Huffington Post’s Bob Burnett said that Romney “blew his chance to score points on Benghazi.” During the Vice-Presidential debate, Ryan also allowed Biden to slither away with the curt dismissal of “mistakes were made and we need to make sure it doesn’t happen again” and “we didn’t know” without pressing for specifics and offering what should have been done if an effective administration were in charge.Most importantly, Romney/Ryan failed to make the case as to why all Americans have been put into danger by demonstrating weakness to a culture that regards such behavior as an invitation for further bloodshed.<br /><br />They were not asked who decided to immediately blame a video that nobody had seen being the cause of “spontaneous demonstrations” when in fact a coordinated attack took place. And fewer still have looked into how the inflammation of deadly protests in at least twenty predominantly Islamic countries may have any relationship with Obama’s repeated statements of mea culpa on America’s behalf. Of course, the media should have been pressing Obama/Biden on this, but when the question was [meekly] asked, the President responded, “we’re conducting an investigation” and reporters took this as sufficient and did not press the issue further.<br /><center>***</center>Obama has been repeatedly allowed to get away with his allegation that the “failed policies of the past” weakened the U.S. economy that he inherited at the end of 2008. Nobody in the press has asked him which policies they were and why. The implication is that it was too much freedom and not enough government, which has been swallowed whole. <br /><br />The GOP challengers also did not bring this up, which surrendered the issue to those who are actually responsible for the housing bubble and the financial crisis. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pushed mortgages to people who demonstrably could not make the payments. In 2005, Republicans warned of this and were dismissed by Barney Frank and the Democrats as doom-sayers. <br /><br />After Obama was sworn in, the Democrat Congress pushed through a “financial reform” package that not only left Fannie and Freddie conspicuously exempt, it put the U.S. taxpayer on the hook for a blank check on their behalf.<br /><br />Obama touted the taxpayer-funded and federal government-managed bailout of the auto industry -- basically as a Shining Example of the virtues of central planning. He successfully smeared Romney with advocating GM and Chrysler being dismantled, with the plant and equipment sold off and all of the employees fired. Romney did not effectively counter this, explaining in layman’s’ terms that the auto bailout was actually done for political reasons and accomplished the very political end of preserving union jobs and leaving their exorbitant contracts off-the-table when costs and efficiencies were evaluated. Romney did not explain that if these automakers had been allowed to go into bankruptcy, the courts would have husbanded decisions being made for economic reasons rather than political ones and that the result would have been companies that were more efficient, producing vehicles that people would want to buy -- and would not have cost the U.S. taxpayer a cent.<br /><center>***</center>The Party of Abraham Lincoln failed to make the case to people of color that they have a much brighter future being empowered to see to their own needs rather than accepting the Party of Jim Crow’s seduction of Thirty Pieces of Silver in the form of the false security of dependency in exchange for their freedom. Consequently, too many of them bought the notion that cutting taxes means that they would get less than if they earned a living with good paying jobs in a free economy. Some even accepted the very dangerous and divisive bill of goods that tax cuts are racist because those who are exploiting them are keeping too much of a finite collective pie. <br /><br />With respect to illegal immigration, the Democrats successfully perpetuated the canard that Republicans want soldiers knocking on doors in the middle of the night, rounding up families and sending them anywhere, so long as it’s south of the border. [Given that many here illegally come from places where this is a real possibility, this fear is palpable to them.] The GOP does not at this time have a coherent response and policy. Some say to put up a fence and militarize the border. Others say the local police should round up illegals and keep them until the Federal government gets around to doing something with them. Still others slouch toward amnesty masked as “immigration reform.”<br /><br />A simple, humane and cost-free solution would be to reserve taxpayer-funded benefits for U.S. citizens and summarily deport anyone arrested committing a crime while being here illegally. Also, the incentive for the cruel spectacle of pregnant women braving the desert to give birth to a taxpayer-funded meal ticket should be removed. The spirit and purpose of the 14th Amendment should be honored by making it so those born to non-citizens are legally considered citizens of their parents’ native lands -- which is how it is in most countries in the world, including Mexico. The Republican leadership must make it clear that they are not beholden to commercial interests addicted to cheap, easily exploitable labor. They must make it clear that they will do what is best for the American people so wages will not continue to be kept flat in part by a huge labor glut fueled by millions of economic refugees.<br /><center>***</center>The Democrats brought the issue of abortion and contraception to the fore, alleging that Republicans want to break into women’s medicine cabinets and “punish,” as Obama said, girls like his daughter “with a baby” should they “make a mistake.” The GOP does not have a coherent response to this either and Romney/Ryan failed to see the importance of clearly addressing it. <br /><br />The Supreme Court had no business issuing legislation from the bench on the subject of abortion in 1973, making it so only other unelected judges with life tenure can change the ruling. [This is why the Democrats are so hysterical about which President is appointing Supreme Court justices.] The American people are divided on this issue and this matter should therefore be left to the states, with the respective legislatures making law that is subject to review and revision based upon popular will as it evolves. Adding contraception to the mix, the First Amendment guarantees not only free speech, but freedom of religion as well. That means that Catholics, Muslims and Jews should not be compelled to pay for someone else’s abortions and contraceptives.<br /><br />I have found some of Rush Limbaugh observations on the Democrat rank-and-file's mindset to be insightful, regarding how it compares to that of the Republicans. He points out that the Democrat Party is actually more diverse in perspectives on various issues, many are conflicting in fact. Black Democrats might not want Heather’s Two Mommies imposed on their children in the classroom<b> -- </b>which is why may of them are increasingly drawn to vouchers<b> --</b> but they are willing to hold their noses and vote for the Party of Jim Crow anyway because nearly all Democrats are united on the prospect that government is the solution for just about anything.<br /><br />But I disagree with Rush on his observation that the majority of the American people have chosen government as Santa Claus because that is more attractive than being told the truth and that it involves thinking and working for yourself. <br /><br />The fact that Romney/Ryan got a significant bump in the aftermath of the first debate demonstrates that there are enough Americans who are willing to keep an open mind and will revise their opinions if given relevant facts. <br /><center>***</center>Bob Burnett is among the harpies of the Left who are trotting out their favorite “friendly advice”&nbsp; that the Republican Party needs to basically become the Democrat Party-lite. The implication is that the majority of the American people want collectivism at home and surrender abroad. Let us be more than skeptical of the motives of such advice.<br /><br />The Republican Party certainly needs to do some soul-searching now if we are to remain relevant -- and if America is to have a chance at recovering prosperity and security. We must not listen to those who call on the GOP to emulate an European conservative party by touting that we could more efficiently manage a social welfare state. Those within our ranks who think this way must be identified and unceremoniously purged.<br /><br />We must unabashedly stand for freedom and courageously expose our opponents as standing for poverty, oppression and ignorance -- intentionally or not. And I urge our Libertarian friends to stop dividing those who advocate for freedom and re-join the Party of Abraham Lincoln.<br /><br />We have struggles ahead and must be united in purpose and clear in resolve if freedom is to have a chance. If your way is right, your ideas being implemented means everybody wins. If your way is wrong, everybody loses -- including you!<br /><br />Wal Fordhttps://plus.google.com/116844492046071527335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7707119071509299565.post-48126675628553914532012-10-01T16:19:00.000-04:002012-10-01T17:57:08.372-04:00To Our Libertarian Friends&nbsp;Commentary by walford<br /><br />If you are a collectivist and vote for the Communist or Socialist Party candidate instead of Obama, your vote might as well be for Romney.<br /><br />If you favor personal/economic freedom and vote for the Libertarian or other third party candidate instead of Romney, your vote might as well be for Obama.<br /><br />The American electorate has been acclimated toward increasing collectivism and central planning for several generations now. Even most Republicans cannot conceive of an America without the Income Tax, Social Security, Medicaid, the Federal Reserve, public schools, welfare and other government institutions that are at best unnecessary in a free society. <br /><br />Private charity that is geared toward getting people out of poverty rather than government entitlement that is geared toward keeping people dependent -- at cost of their own freedom -- would be far better at providing for those truly in need. Private investment in which companies must convince people they would get a good return on their own dollars would be far better at allocating capital to everyone’s benefit rather than companies that are only competent at convincing politicians to give them other peoples’ money. <br /><br />Only a small minority of us understands these things today. So sorry. <br /><br />Too many of us think that the people are the State and the State is the people [“we are the government”], so the more powerful the government is, the more empowered are the people. Private property is increasingly seen as only to be tolerated if it serves the State. True freedom and justice is increasingly seen as only possible through the State. It has taken a long time for America to get where it is socially, economically and politically and it will take a practical, patient approach to arrest this process.<br /><br />You cannot take a train that is hurtling toward a cliff and abruptly reverse its course. Inertia is a powerful force in physics and in society. Romney/Ryan is only promising to slow that process down, which is the most that an ever-thinning majority of voters are willing to accept at this time. I'm not happy about this either, but that's the way it is right now. <br /><br />Much of Obama’s disastrous economic policies will be slowed down, stopped and even reversed if Romney is in the White House. The private economy will improve significantly with the uncertainty taken away. That would be a good start. Then we can make the case for how much better off America would be under economic freedom. But it will take time and demonstrable results, which I am confident that the current Republican candidates will deliver. Romney has a proven track record of improving things in the private sector and finding ways to get things done in government even in an environment hostile to freedom like Massachusetts. <br /><br />We can look to Greece as an example of what beckons if we choose poorly. People there and in much of Continental Europe are so addicted to social welfare programs that to threaten to even slow down the growth of one turns them out into the streets rioting. Obama and his minions lust for the day when this happens in America on a large scale so they can reap the political benefits of being our Sugar Daddy -- and pimp. <br /><br />America stands at the precipice of the Abyss and the upcoming election will determine whether we will choose the shared poverty and dependency of collectivism or the prosperity and self-determination that comes with economic freedom. The upcoming election will determine which way America goes. It may indeed be seen as the tipping point when the United States sank into oblivion until history is sanitized of the fact that at one time, we had a choice.<br /><br />There are some social conservatives who believe that America deserves to be punished with the Democrat if the Republican candidate does not 100% support the evangelical agenda.<br />I'm sorry if the current Republican candidate is not as pure on the economic front as you would like. Does this mean that America must be punished with four more years of Obama? I fear that another term for him will do us in for good.<br /><br />The Obamanites have gotten an increasing number of us thinking that they are better off taking from the government rather than working for themselves. Such people don’t mind if taxes are raised, because that is not seen as affecting them. To them, raising taxes means they will get more. <br /><br />It was a mistake to found the Libertarian Party and abandon the Party of Abraham Lincoln to the Jerry Falwells. The best chance of having libertarian policies enacted is to libertarianize the Republican Party from within and diminish the influence of those who think the government should be used to impose theocracy. They are just as bad as the Leftists who wish to impose Secular Humanist dogmatism via the coercive power of government.<br /><br />We must make the case to the American people that the G.O.P. has always stood for equality under the law, personal responsibility and opportunity while the Democrat Party has stood for inequality, oppression and dependence since the days prior to the Civil War. <br /><br />If you think that voting third party in order to make a statement is more important than preventing America from irretrievably sinking into collectivism, you are not a part of the Cause of freedom. I invite you to leave the country, buy an island, call it Galt’s Gulch and live out your purist libertarian fantasies.<br /><br />Leave America to those of us who actually care and are willing to determine what will actually work and how it can be made to happen rather than wallowing on what should be and could be. Wal Fordhttps://plus.google.com/116844492046071527335noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7707119071509299565.post-90705486676213111942012-09-26T09:29:00.002-04:002012-09-26T09:29:06.268-04:00Free Speech and Islamic Outrage: What Was Said, What Should Have Been Said <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument></xml><![endif]--><b>What was said -</b><br /><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles></xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><img src="//img2.blogblog.com/img/video_object.png" style="background-color: #b2b2b2; " class="BLOGGER-object-element tr_noresize tr_placeholder" id="ieooui" data-original-id="ieooui" /><style>st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]><style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style><![endif]--> <br /><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b><a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/09/heres-a-timeline-of-the-confusing-statements-on-libya-and-egypt/262264/" target="_blank">@USEmbassyCairo</a></b> (Tweeted 9/11/2012): </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">“The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims -- as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others."</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal"><b><a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/14/us-usa-clinton-film-idUSBRE88D0E820120914" target="_blank">United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton</a></b> (9/14/2012): </div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">"The United States government had absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its content and message.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div class="MsoNormal">To us, to me personally, this video is disgusting and reprehensible. It appears to have a deeply cynical purpose: to denigrate a great religion and to provoke rage.</div><div class="MsoNormal"><br /></div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">I know it is hard for some people to understand why the United States cannot or does not just prevent these kinds of reprehensible videos from ever seeing the light of day. I would note that in today's world, with today's technologies, that is virtually impossible.</div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;"><br /></div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;"><span id="midArticle_6"></span>But even if it were possible our country does have a long tradition of free expression which is enshrined in our Constitution and our law. And we do not stop individual citizens from expressing their views no matter how distasteful they may be."</div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;"><br /></div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;"><i>Commentary by walford</i></div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;"><br /></div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;"><i>She reiterated the point that the U.S. government had “nothing to do” with the “offending” video as she gave a speech while the bodies of U.S. Ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were later being unloaded at Andrews Air Force Base.</i></div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;"><br /></div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;"><b><a href="http://freedomoutpost.com/2012/09/obama-to-un-the-future-must-not-belong-to-those-who-slander-the-prophet-of-islam/" target="_blank">President Barack Obama</a></b> (9/25/2012): </div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;"><br /></div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">“In every country, there are those who find different religious beliefs threatening; in every culture, those who love freedom for themselves must ask how much they are willing to tolerate freedom for others.</div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;"><br /></div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">That is what we saw play out the last two weeks, as a crude and disgusting video sparked outrage throughout the Muslim world. I have made it clear that the United States government had nothing to do with this video, and I believe its message must be rejected by all who respect our common humanity.</div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;"><br /></div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;">The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam."</div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;"><br /></div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;"><i>He later <b><a href="http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012/09/25/transcript-president-obamas-address-to-the-united-nations-general-assembly/#more-95871" target="_blank">gave a speech before theU.N. General Assembly</a></b> saying that no religion should be denigrated, even allowing this for Christianity. This is an improvement for him, but it misses the point and thus leaves ambiguity for those who mean us harm to interpret to suit their own intolerant -- and self-serving -- needs. Our freedom of speech should have been at the forefront and our resolve to defend it unequivocal.</i></div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;"><hr /></div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;"><b>What should have been said -</b><br /><br /><i>This is what any President who has sworn to protect the US Constitution should have said on the day the rioting started and repeated ever since -- especially in front of the UN:</i></div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;"><br /></div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;"><i>"The United States of America is a free country with free speech. <!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:PunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w:DontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument></xml><![endif]-->That is what makes our country great. That is what makes our country prosperous. People who are free to express themselves without fear have their creativity unbound to the benefit of all. There is no individual and no group in our country who is too powerful to be exempt from robust and uninhibited criticism. And this right of free expression is extended to everyone, regardless of connections or lack thereof. </i></div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;"><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles></xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><img src="//img2.blogblog.com/img/video_object.png" style="background-color: #b2b2b2; " class="BLOGGER-object-element tr_noresize tr_placeholder" id="ieooui" data-original-id="ieooui" /><style>st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]><style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style><![endif]--> </div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;"><br /></div><i> </i><br /><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;"><i>People who suffer under oppression and poverty owe their condition in great part to their lack of free speech. We in the United States will certainly not emulate this to appease those who will resort to violence because of speech that offends them.</i></div><i></i><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;"><br /></div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;"><i>Our government is not in a position to endorse or undermine in any way the free speech of private individuals. Our government has a responsibility to defend it, however. Specifically with regard to speech supporting, glorifying, lampooning or criticizing a particular religion, that is not prohibited in our country.</i></div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;"><br /></div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;"><i>We understand that picturing or discussing the Prophet of Islam in a way that is not in accordance with Islamic teaching and scriptures is prohibited under Shari'a law, under penalty of death. We do not have Shari'a law in the United States of America. We have a Constitution which we are sworn to defend, even if that means with blood.</i></div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;"><br /></div><div style="margin-bottom: .0001pt; margin: 0in;"><i>As President of the United States, I am prepared to defend our freedom of speech using all the means at my disposal. Those who would threaten or harm Americans lawfully expressing their freedom of speech should know unequivocally that they do so at risk of their very lives."</i></div>Wal Fordhttps://plus.google.com/116844492046071527335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7707119071509299565.post-42074868067307458592012-09-24T00:52:00.003-04:002012-11-15T03:47:45.309-05:00GOP's "War on Women" vs DNC's "Choice"<a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/nrd/articles/316742/risky-choice" target="_blank"><b>Risky Choice</b></a><br />The Democrats double down on abortion<br /><br />National Review October 1, 2012 Issue<br /><br />By Ramesh Ponnuru<br /><br /><i>Watching the Democratic convention in Charlotte, at least in the hours before the networks started covering it, one might have gotten the impression that the chief threat to the common good in America is that some people want to restrict what was variously called “reproductive health care,” “the right to choose,” and, most simply if least frequently, “abortion.”<br /><br />This subject was the theme of speeches by Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood; Nancy Keenan, the president of a group called NARAL Pro-Choice America; and activist Sandra Fluke, famous for having been called a slut by Rush Limbaugh. Maria Ciano, addressing the convention as a former Republican, endorsed the right to choose. So did Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick and San Antonio mayor Julián Castro. Caroline Kennedy, herself famous for being the daughter of a former president, said that she was especially concerned about reproductive health care “as a Catholic.” Actress Kerry Washington mentioned the right to choose in her speech. The president did as well.</i><br />==================<br />Commentary by walford<br /><br />The National Review article notes that several pro-abortion speakers addressed the DNC this year, increasing the prominence of the issue. The Republican Party's position on this issue has not changed and GOP candidates have not addressed it unless asked.<br /><br />It was the Democrat Party that decided to make abortion and contraception synonymous with "women's health." In campaign ads, one of the things that is cited against the Republicans is that they oppose forcing employers and taxpayers to pay for abortion and contraception. That is true.<br /><br />The Obama administration certainly cannot run on its economic record, so I can see how it would be tempting to divert attention elsewhere by fanning the flames of fear by showing videos of a Republican pushing an old lady off the cliff or implying that they will, as Obama had said, see to it that girls like his daughters would be "punished with a baby" should they "make a mistake."<br /><br />Republicans object to controversial social issues like these being settled in the courts, understanding that the American people are divided and that their perspectives change over time. Law should only be made in the legislatures by our elected representatives, subject to revision and review.<br /><br />In that arena, we can debate whether unlimited abortion and contraception are actually in women's interests [as well as society at large] and whether it is proper to force people to go against their conscience and/or religious principles -- in direct contravention of the First Amendment to the Constitution -- by paying for these things. If Roe vs. Wade was overturned, the issue would revert to the states wherein multiple approaches would be tried and changed as is determined by the people themselves.<br /><br />It is clear, however, that the dominant view in the Democrat Party, is that some issues are too important to be trusted to a popular mandate. They prefer that a non-elected coterie of berobed Philosopher Kings settle the issue once and for all.<br /><br />So which party is actually "pro-choice" and which is not? <br /><div style="text-align: center;">***</div>The Constitution does not guarantee abortion, but it does indeed explicitly address the right to life.<br /><br />It is one thing to say that the government should not be involved in the removal of a liver or kidney -- which would make the argument that a woman should have the right to determine what is done with her own body. Secular humanist Utopians, in their self-serving hubris, seem to regard the fact that women of child-bearing age are vessels of life as some form of male-conspiratorial oppression. There is a palpable sense that they hold that the child developing in the womb is some sort of STD and should be treated as such. <br /><br />Slavery, denying the vote and other forms of oppression were made legally possible by defining a certain class of people as second-class citizens -- if not as sub-human.<br /><br />Many of the arguments in favor of killing an innocent baby in the womb can also be made in favor of a child who has been born.<br /><br />Princeton ethicist Peter Singer advocates killing babies as long as a year after being delivered if the infant is determined [by whom?] to be "defective." And let us remember that Planned Parenthood was founded as a eugenics organization whose mission was to rid the world of undesirables [viz. people of color] and the disabled. One could argue if a mother had sex with her husband and was subsequently raped, the baby could be subject to execution if the child is determined to be the rapist's offspring.<br /><br />These are the sorts of things should be subject to debate, revision and review according to a popular mandate. Neither those who are inconvenienced by someone's existence nor a panel of judges are qualified to resolve this issue on a personal level nor in issuing the Law of the Land, respectively. The defining of human life and whether someone is entitled to the protection under the law is much more than a personal choice. Society at large is affected and invested, therefor this essential human rights issue.should be subject to open and continuous debate.Wal Fordhttps://plus.google.com/116844492046071527335noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7707119071509299565.post-74306348663838569132012-09-16T11:56:00.001-04:002012-09-20T20:12:14.316-04:00To Our Vegan/Vegetarian Friends<span data-ft="{&quot;tn&quot;:&quot;K&quot;}" id=".reactRoot[241].[1][2][1]{comment455507591158432_1642593}..[1]..[1]..[0].[2]"><span class="UFICommentBody" id=".reactRoot[241].[1][2][1]{comment455507591158432_1642593}..[1]..[1]..[0].[2]."><span id=".reactRoot[241].[1][2][1]{comment455507591158432_1642593}..[1]..[1]..[0].[2]..[0]">&nbsp;Commentary by walford</span></span></span><br /><br /><span data-ft="{&quot;tn&quot;:&quot;K&quot;}" id=".reactRoot[241].[1][2][1]{comment455507591158432_1642593}..[1]..[1]..[0].[2]"><span class="UFICommentBody" id=".reactRoot[241].[1][2][1]{comment455507591158432_1642593}..[1]..[1]..[0].[2]."><span id=".reactRoot[241].[1][2][1]{comment455507591158432_1642593}..[1]..[1]..[0].[2]..[0]">If our ancestors did not eat meat, we would not be sitting at our keyboards arguing this point at all. Period.</span><br id=".reactRoot[241].[1][2][1]{comment455507591158432_1642593}..[1]..[1]..[0].[2]..[1]" /><br id=".reactRoot[241].[1][2][1]{comment455507591158432_1642593}..[1]..[1]..[0].[2]..[2]" /><span id=".reactRoot[241].[1][2][1]{comment455507591158432_1642593}..[1]..[1]..[0].[2]..[3]">After the australopithicines diverged from the genuses that later became the apes [we are not descended from apes; we are related, via a common ancestor] there was a split in the evolutionary tree. </span><br id=".reactRoot[241].[1][2][1]{comment455507591158432_1642593}..[1]..[1]..[0].[2]..[4]" /><br id=".reactRoot[241].[1][2][1]{comment455507591158432_1642593}..[1]..[1]..[0].[2]..[5]" /><span id=".reactRoot[241].[1][2][1]{comment455507591158432_1642593}..[1]..[1]..[0].[2]..[6]">One of these was Homo, which later became man. The other was Paranthropus, which was a strictly plant-eating anthropoid. This creature had a crest at the top of the skull, much like the modern -- and herbivorous -- gorilla.</span><br id=".reactRoot[241].[1][2][1]{comment455507591158432_1642593}..[1]..[1]..[0].[2]..[7]" /><br id=".reactRoot[241].[1][2][1]{comment455507591158432_1642593}..[1]..[1]..[0].[2]..[8]" /><span id=".reactRoot[241].[1][2][1]{comment455507591158432_1642593}..[1]..[1]..[0].[2]..[9]">This cranial structure served to anchor the jaw muscles necessary to be able to chew on raw plant matter. These muscles, however, limited the possibility for brain development.</span><br id=".reactRoot[241].[1][2][1]{comment455507591158432_1642593}..[1]..[1]..[0].[2]..[10]" /><br id=".reactRoot[241].[1][2][1]{comment455507591158432_1642593}..[1]..[1]..[0].[2]..[11]" /><span id=".reactRoot[241].[1][2][1]{comment455507591158432_1642593}..[1]..[1]..[0].[2]..[12]">The Homo genus on the other hand, was omnivorous and had to develop brain capacity to overcome its physical disadvantages in order to take game -- oftentimes much larger than itself.</span><br id=".reactRoot[241].[1][2][1]{comment455507591158432_1642593}..[1]..[1]..[0].[2]..[13]" /><br id=".reactRoot[241].[1][2][1]{comment455507591158432_1642593}..[1]..[1]..[0].[2]..[14]" /><span id=".reactRoot[241].[1][2][1]{comment455507591158432_1642593}..[1]..[1]..[0].[2]..[15]">The physical difference between Paranthropus and the gorilla is that the former had a human-like body, with an ape head, while the latter was many times more powerful. Put simply,</span></span></span><span data-ft="{&quot;tn&quot;:&quot;K&quot;}" id=".reactRoot[241].[1][2][1]{comment455507591158432_1642593}..[1]..[1]..[0].[2]"><span class="UFICommentBody" id=".reactRoot[241].[1][2][1]{comment455507591158432_1642593}..[1]..[1]..[0].[2]."><span id=".reactRoot[241].[1][2][1]{comment455507591158432_1642593}..[1]..[1]..[0].[2]..[15]"><span data-ft="{&quot;tn&quot;:&quot;K&quot;}" id=".reactRoot[241].[1][2][1]{comment455507591158432_1642593}..[1]..[1]..[0].[2]"><span class="UFICommentBody" id=".reactRoot[241].[1][2][1]{comment455507591158432_1642593}..[1]..[1]..[0].[2]."><span id=".reactRoot[241].[1][2][1]{comment455507591158432_1642593}..[1]..[1]..[0].[2]..[15]"> Paranthropus</span></span></span> was stupid, weak and slow. </span><br id=".reactRoot[241].[1][2][1]{comment455507591158432_1642593}..[1]..[1]..[0].[2]..[16]" /><br id=".reactRoot[241].[1][2][1]{comment455507591158432_1642593}..[1]..[1]..[0].[2]..[17]" /><span id=".reactRoot[241].[1][2][1]{comment455507591158432_1642593}..[1]..[1]..[0].[2]..[18]">Consequently, this was a failed experiment and Paranthropus left no progeny that carried on into the present day. It was a genetic dead-end. </span><br id=".reactRoot[241].[1][2][1]{comment455507591158432_1642593}..[1]..[1]..[0].[2]..[19]" /><br id=".reactRoot[241].[1][2][1]{comment455507591158432_1642593}..[1]..[1]..[0].[2]..[20]" /><span id=".reactRoot[241].[1][2][1]{comment455507591158432_1642593}..[1]..[1]..[0].[2]..[21]">So if you wish to emulate this extinct species to make you feel better about yourself, know that you are being just as stupid. Now if you'll excuse me, I have steaks to put on the grill.</span></span></span>Wal Fordhttps://plus.google.com/116844492046071527335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7707119071509299565.post-3387244735600910002012-04-18T13:12:00.006-04:002012-04-19T12:27:02.002-04:00An Open Letter to Mitt Romney on Illegal Immigration and Caving in General<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:worddocument> <w:view>Normal</w:View> <w:zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:punctuationkerning/> <w:validateagainstschemas/> <w:saveifxmlinvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:ignoremixedcontent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:alwaysshowplaceholdertext>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:compatibility> <w:breakwrappedtables/> <w:snaptogridincell/> <w:wraptextwithpunct/> <w:useasianbreakrules/> <w:dontgrowautofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:browserlevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:latentstyles deflockedstate="false" latentstylecount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if !mso]><object classid="clsid:38481807-CA0E-42D2-BF39-B33AF135CC4D" id="ieooui"></object> <style> st1\:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]--> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style="mso-bidi-font-weight:normal"><u><span style="color:blue;"><a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/romneys-immigration-stance-soften-appeal-latino-voters/story?id=16163206#.T47sRtmPMgJ">Romney's immigration stance may soften to appeal to Latino voters</a></span></u></b></p> <p style="font-style: italic;" class="MsoNormal">Mitt Romney may adopt a softer tone on illegal immigration now that the long and divisive primary is over and he gears up for a head-to-head battle with Barack Obama....</p> <p style="font-style: italic;" class="MsoNormal">"We have to get Hispanic voters to vote for our party," he told donors, according to NBC. Latinos' overwhelming support for Democrats and Obama "spells doom for us," he said.</p><hr />Commentary by walford<br /><p></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Not all Latinos support illegal immigration and those who do would NEVER vote GOP in the first place. We don't need them. They are either hell-bent on Reconquista or they are not eligible to vote. Both of those groups will be voting Obama in November.<br /></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Rather than enforce existing laws, is Romney willing to try to be more of an appeaser to illegal immigration than is Barack Obama? If so, he will fail at this and instead only serve to alienate the Republican base who will be only more inclined to either stay home or vote third party.<br /></p> <p class="MsoNormal">What should be done instead? We do not need to militarize the border, build a wall or seek mass deportations. Instead, three things that will cost no money will more than suffice in addressing the illegal immigration issue effectively.<br /></p> <ol><li>Reserve all taxpayer-funded benefits for U.S. citizens and legal residents. No driver's licenses. No welfare. No food stamps. No education. Such services should be sought in their native lands. The United States is not obligated to provide for the rest of the world.<br /></li><li>Clarify the 14th Amendment so it applies as it was intended when enacted. Those born slaves or born to slaves in U.S. territory are citizens. Those born to non-citizens -- particularly those who are here illegally -- are citizens of their home countries. The United States is one of the few countries of the world that do not have this policy. There is no good reason for pregnant women braving the desert in pursuit of giving birth to a taxpayer-funded meal ticket.<br /></li><li>All who are convicted of crimes in this country and found to be here illegally should be summarily deported.<br /></li></ol> <p class="MsoNormal">These and similar measures will result in many who are here illegally deporting themselves as well as those who are contemplating coming here remaining home and reforming their own countries. The number of American unemployed will have more job opportunities and higher wages as the labor glut is alleviated. By all means, compare the number of unemployed Americans to the number of people in this country illegally.<br /></p> <p class="MsoNormal">It is said that Americans would not pick strawberries or pluck chickens, so we must allow illegal immigration, guest worker programs and/or amnesty. In actuality, Americans would not do such work at the wages paid to people here illegally by exploitative employers.<br /></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Fostering or even tolerating illegal immigration is not compassionate. It is cruel.<br /></p> <p class="MsoNormal">Mexican governments over the past couple of generations have been spared internal pressures to curb the cronyism, respect human rights and foster a business-friendly environment. Why? Because the United States has been serving as a political and economic safety valve for various despotic regimes in the world. The results have been bad for ordinary people on both sides of the border.<br /></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Gov. Romney</span>, I implore you to reconsider on this and all other major issues that you may be considering conceding in pursuit of so-called moderate voters. Ronald Reagan won decisively in two national elections because he unabashedly held to the principles upon which the Party of Abraham Lincoln was founded. Unity. Freedom. Family. Self-Reliance. Empowerment. God. Country. Security at home and abroad.<br /></p> <p class="MsoNormal">We have had enough of having the GOP leadership taking the base for granted and attempting to placate the squishy middle. They will be attracted to those who actually stand for something. Prove your conservative detractors wrong and don’t betray us. Show us the courage of convictions and don’t apologize for who you are or for America.</p><p class="MsoNormal">Both parties know well what the will and interests of the American people are with respect to illegal immigration and have let us down.</p><p class="MsoNormal">Too many Democrats consider them voters to be bought with taxpayer-funded largesse. Many also are attracted to the fact that they come from places where questioning government authority is hazardous to one's health.</p><p class="MsoNormal">Let us not count you, Gov. Romney as among those Republicans who are beholden to commercial interests that are addicted to cheap, easily exploitable labor.<br /></p>Wal Fordhttps://plus.google.com/116844492046071527335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7707119071509299565.post-13865158372118193652012-03-30T12:27:00.002-04:002012-03-30T12:33:04.704-04:00Redistribution, collectivism and economic freedomCommentary by walford<br /><br />Governments cannot redistribute wealth; they can only redistribute poverty. Governments cannot eliminate or curb poverty, they can only eliminate or curb wealth.<br /><br />The only choice we have is a shared poverty under collectivism and central planning or "the disparities" that accompany the prosperity that is enabled by economic freedom.<br /><br />There is no way to grow an economy to the benefit of all w/o the rich getting disproportionately richer. So if the very poor will have their wealth tripled, the very rich may have their wealth multiplied a thousandfold. Is this bad? Is a shared poverty preferable?<br /><br />That is because Economic Freedom raises the bar on how much wealth that it is possible to create. And the concept of created wealth is something that collectivists cannot possibly fathom.<br /><br />Do not begrudge Bill Gates his fortune. He did not attain it at our expense, taking a larger share of finite pies than the rest of us as the advocates of redistributionist central planning would have us believe. That may have been true under pre-industrial agrarian economies, but not since then.<br /><br />Bill Gates and those like him have baked new, better, cheaper pies. In the process of enriching himself making computers more powerful and easier to afford, he has also increased what it is possible for us all to attain.<br /><br />He is a greater benefactor to mankind than Mother Theresa could have been in 10 lifetimes.Wal Fordhttps://plus.google.com/116844492046071527335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7707119071509299565.post-5378004619688500722012-03-24T22:51:00.031-04:002012-10-11T17:43:55.576-04:00Gay Marriage: "Conservatives Understand Liberals. Liberals Don't Understand Conservatives."<a href="http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Conservatives-Understand-Liberals.-Liberals-Don-t-Understand-Conservatives/%28page%29/1" style="color: #3333ff;">http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Conservatives-Understand-Liberals.-Liberals-Don-t-Understand-Conservatives/%28page%29/1</a><br /><br />"Liberals see conservatives as being motivated by an opposition to liberals’ core values of compassion and fairness, as well as being motivated by their own (non-moral) values of in group loyalty, respect for authorities and traditions, and spiritual purity. For instance, when conservatives express binding-foundation moral concerns about gay marriage—e.g., that it subverts traditional gender roles and family structures—liberals may have difficulty perceiving any moral value in such traditional arrangements and therefore conclude that conservatives are motivated by simple homophobia, untempered by concerns about fairness, equality, and rights."<br /><hr />Commentary by walford<br /><br />When Rick Santorum was recently being interrogated at a college forum about his opposition to gay marriage -- when he wanted to talk about the economy -- a part of his response [that was ignored by the media] was that civil unions are available. [I would add that a person can designate anyone to have financial and medical power of attorney.] He also went on to say that those who wish to change existing laws should make their case [democratically] in the legislatures by our elected representatives rather than in the Courts [by an unelected elite with lifetime tenure whose rulings are only subject to review by other appointed judges].<br /><br />I would go on to add that marriage is an institution that has developed independently in every society and pre-dates written history. The community as a whole is invested in it because a major aspect and result of marriage -- under what circumstances children are born and reared -- has an effect upon us all. When humans were rare and vulnerable, our ancestors developed social structures and norms that had a direct effect upon survival of the group. We are each descended from those who made the right decisions in that regard.<br /><br />If the vital institution of the family is to change via government sanction as well as by social mores, this is something the general population needs to discuss at length and any laws enacted be subject to revision and review as consequences make themselves apparent.<br /><br />Conservative opposition to taxpayer-funded birth control -- beyond any religious objection -- is that it, in combination with abortion, greatly contribute to Westerners selecting ourselves for extinction and women being expected to sexually service men with no commitment. We do not regard this as being liberating or respectful. Behaviors are enabled that in turn create opportunities for micro-organisms to develop -- which our vaunted technology then helps to spread globally -- that otherwise would affect local populations only. Our fertility and continued survival is thusly undermined further. Conservatives consistently hold that Nature's Laws cannot be cheated and that we cannot change the rules of life on this planet to suit fleeting urges.<br /><br />The pattern is familiar enough. First we are lectured about being tolerant. Then we are pressed to be accepting. All too often it is finally demanded of us to subsidize.<br /><br />I will be so bold as to say that the above more typifies the conservative mindset than the Straw Men that are so routinely offered to be knocked down.<br /><br />Instead, it is alleged that conservatives are waging a war on women's freedom and prudishly desire to impinge upon everybody's fun. We are telling people with whom they can be intimate because we are homophobic. And let us entertain this widely offered accusation for a moment. Homophobia is an irrational fear of homosexuals because the afflicted person fears that exposure will bring forth his/her own latent homosexuality. A phobia is a mental disorder. Therefore, those who think that homosexuality is anything but something one is born as; if it is considered anything other than an equally valid alternate lifestyle -- are proof-positive mentally ill. This blanket diagnosis is issued on a regular basis, regardless of the nature of the contrary view -- be it religious, biological, psychological and/or..."ew".<br /><br />This demonstrates how Leftist caricatures of conservatives are ultimately based upon elitism. They cannot conceive of anyone disagreeing with them without being by definition stupid, ill-informed, and/or evil. Also, it is quite possible for Leftists to insulate themselves into intellectual enclaves of the like-minded with little exposure to the contrary.<br /><br />For our part, we conservatives would have to take great lengths to avoid the Leftist viewpoint. They dominate the entertainment industry, the media, academia and the political class. Predictably, they look upon this from an elitist lens as well. In candid moments, they let it slip that they think that this is so because they are better informed.<br /><br />The reality is the Aristocracy has shifted from being by birth to that of political pull. It is no less medievalist. The general population is on a visceral level distrusted as incorrigibly ignorant and should therefore be silenced or marginalized if it cannot be manipulated into accepting dicta from Our Betters.<br /><br />We are constantly barraged with The Cause from the schools, the news and entertainment. This in turn has created a hunger for alternatives -- hence the increasing interest in vouchers, home-schooling as well as the high ratings of conservative news and commentary. The general population may not have had the level of access to information as did the self-appointed elites -- the Internet has served greatly to equalize that disadvantage -- but they have always had Common Sense. People know when they are being lied to and when they are being sold a bill of goods.<br /><br />We are neither stupid, ignorant nor evil -- as the Left thinks and hopes we are.<br /><br />Hence, the majority -- knowingly or not -- still holds to the essential conservative values of freedom, individual responsibility, objective reality and morality as being something that is externally generated and thus must be discovered, rather than made.<br /><br />This frustrates, infuriates and terrifies the Left.Wal Fordhttps://plus.google.com/116844492046071527335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7707119071509299565.post-31939956746276934592010-12-24T11:59:00.000-05:002012-10-11T17:52:11.665-04:00Natural Law, Natural Religion&nbsp;Commentary by walford<br /><br />"Natural Law" is a concept that developed under the Enlightenment. It essentially means that we are all born free and that the only legitimate purpose of government is to protect our freedoms. That means it should protect us from criminals..., foreign invaders and to settle disputes. It means that we can do anything so long as it does not adversely affect anyone else [hence pollution would still be illegal and the existing laws could be even more strict].<br /><br />It does not mean that government should provide for us or coerce us to conform to an arbitrarily defined Utopian ideal designed by a self-appointed elite.<br /><br />Natural Religion is that which is based upon the Laws of Nature, which are to be discovered, not made by Man. The Holy Scriptures are written in how the Divine operates directly rather than in the writings of man. Penalty and reward issue from the consequences of our decisions -- collectively and individually. If one puts his hand in a fire, he burns. If we engage in behaviors that create an environment that would spread disease, that tribe with be wiped out. If our government implements an economic system based upon faulty logic, the system will collapse.<br /><br />In Natural Law and Natural Religion, the standards are understood as objective -- externally generated. Under Utopian ideology and dogmatic religion, the standards are subjective -- internally generated. Under those ideologies, rather than learning of the world and adapting, the object is to force others to conform to one's own perspective because we believe we each generate our own reality. The content of other people's minds is thus a potential threat as contrary thoughts can potentially destroy the arbitrary ideal.Wal Fordhttps://plus.google.com/116844492046071527335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7707119071509299565.post-11195964788895068052010-10-31T11:50:00.000-04:002010-12-25T13:02:59.632-05:00My Ongoing Spiritual JourneyBy walford<br /><br />Like most of my contemporaries, I thought that the religions deemed acceptable by our culture defined all for religion. There was no connection with the Divine, rather what was important was that you agreed with other people's perspective and accepted their mythology.<br /><br />My skeptical mind could not accept that, so I thought that I was an atheist. But at the same time, I held a great reverence for life. The more I studied in the life and physical sciences, the more I appreciated. Many scientists can be found expressing themselves in reverential tones about the objects of their research – and for good reason.<br /><br />None of our technology can come close to what enables the simplest of living things. The electro-chemical processes that take place on the surface of a cell membrane are nothing short of phenomenal. Competition seems to be an essential part of life; even lifeless chemicals compete with each other for space. It seems that the essence of the struggle for life is which strands of genetic code will survive into the next generations.<br /><br />The delicate balances that permit life on this planet, such as the orbit’s size and shape, the Earth’s tilt, speed of rotation, the magnetic field, etc. are astounding in their precision. There have been a number of what seems like interventions when the “reset button” on life has been pushed, such as the mass-extinctions that took place at the beginning and at the end of the Mesozoic Era. It’s almost as if that particular paradigm had been exhausted in potential and needed to be swept away for the next stage of development.<br /><br />I found that science wasn’t enough to grasp these phenomena, so I researched religion. Sometimes I sat in on observances by those who would allow it. Many of them were followed by testimonials from the practitioners, saying that one didn’t need to understand why things worked, just BELIEVE and so many good things would happen. That wasn’t good enough.<br /><br />Besides, I saw the danger of cults who would invest themselves with Divine sanction, which permitted them to command other people to suit their needs and do great evil.<br /><br />But my research also yielded unmistakable evidence that, as our species spread throughout the planet, people developed religion independently of each other. [I know of no atheistic tribe leaving evidence of itself.] There were certain Sacred images they had in common, such as a mother cradling her infant child. A woman was often seen as channeling the Divine as she brought life into the world. The practices of the earliest religions were similar also. They danced and sang around fires. They knelt upon the Earth, raised their faces to the sky and gave thanks to that which propitiated life.<br /><br />Their observances were based upon the phases of the Sun and Moon, because they are vital to life. We seem to have lost that – particularly the reverence for Nature, the appreciation for women and the female aspects of the Divine. Often it has been replaced by a sterile, gloomy, male-dominated system that functions more like an expansionist political ideology than anything else. It could not suffer competition from anything that would put an objective standard above their subjective cult, characterizing that which they aimed to replace as demonic.<br /><br />So what comes from Nature is evil and what is fabricated by man is good? We can have a Father and cannot have a Mother unless she is lesser-than and subordinate?<br /><br />Our species started out rare and vulnerable; we were most definitely NOT at the top of the food chain. There were many fits and starts in our development. Most of the experiments failed. We are descended from those who found a way to survive.<br /><br />As such, there was no room for cults of personality that put the will of certain people above Nature. The successful religions had in common that life is Blessing, there is Order and Justice in the universe, we have a stake in each others’ welfare – and most importantly, in the world we leave behind.<br /><br />We seem to have forgotten this and do so at our peril. We are no less subject to Nature’s Laws. All our technology has done is make it so the consequences of behaviors that are toxic to life are spread to the general population. We are still not exempt as our entire civilization hurtles toward a significant fork in the road.<br /><br />Lets us discard our prejudices and emulate our ancient ancestors whom we must thank for our existence today. There is no secular or religious “ism” made by man that can replace the Laws of Nature.<br /><br />I write this during the time of the year when the tribes of the Northern Hemisphere would be reaping their final harvests. They took the time to remember their forebears, purge bad habits and plant the seeds for the future.<br /><br />Let us take this time to give thanks for the Blessings of Life by nurturing what brings it and discarding what harms it.<br /><br />Be Blessed.Wal Fordhttps://plus.google.com/116844492046071527335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7707119071509299565.post-72461145871394901252010-09-30T11:03:00.000-04:002010-09-30T16:32:20.551-04:00Technology and Open Communication Blamed for Suicide<a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.foxnews.com/health/2010/09/30/virtual-homicide-virtual-suicide/"><b><u>Virtual Homicide, Virtual Suicide</u></b></a><br />By Dr. Keith Ablow<br /><br />Rutgers University student Tyler Clementi, 18, killed himself Sept. 22 after his roommate Dharun Ravi and his roommate’s friend Molly Wei allegedly taped him - secretly - in an erotic, homosexual encounter in his dorm room and then broadcast the video via Skype.<br /><br />This "stunt" isn’t just a college prank gone bad. It is evidence of the dehumanizing effects that technology is having on young people. I very much doubt that Ravi and Wei are murderers at heart. The "thrill'' of using a Webcam and Skype and Twitter to playact as producers and directors turned their victim (Clementi) into nothing more than another contestant on a mean-spirited, ill-conceived reality show.<br /><br />That’s what technology does to people, though. Working from behind a camera and sending images into Cyberspace now removes the human face from the actions of many, many people. The hardware and software of Skype and Facebook and Twitter and many, many other Web standards can be a virus that scrambles the code of the empathy on the hard drives of their souls. They literally turn into the purveyors of entertainment who lose sight of where Web life begins and real life ends...<hr /><i>Commentary by walford<br /><br />Technology didn't cause this to happen. In the past, the perpetrators could have secretly filmed this with still cameras. Prior to that, they simply could have told people what they saw and the result would have been the same. People have had videos made of themselves doing worse things and didn't commit suicide.<br /><br />Certainly the irresponsible people who posted the video should be prosecuted for privacy invasion and possibly sued for precipitating this situation, but </i><i>ultimately the person who killed himself was entirely responsible for his rash decision. </i><br /><i><br />People like Dr. Ablow apparently are not comfortable with the fact that individuals can instantly publish all kinds of things w/o being filtered by Our Betters in the government or media. A healthy discussion on how to cope with this inevitable phenomenon in a free, technologically advancing society is certainly warranted and desirable.<br /><br />But let us not cast blame upon an open means of communication and information-sharing.<br /></i>Wal Fordhttps://plus.google.com/116844492046071527335noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7707119071509299565.post-74431214727543012192010-09-13T14:41:00.000-04:002014-02-22T03:32:49.142-05:00What is Fascism?Commentary by walford<br /><br /><b>Collectivism</b> is an Utopian ideology which holds that everything and everybody belongs to a group, usually based in a certain location and is typically put into practice at a national scale. Collectivists believe that everything is produced by society as a whole, rather than the accumulated effort of individuals. Rather than allocating resources based upon effort, innovation, hard work, etc. and determined by supply-and-demand, collectivists believe that resource allocation and compensation should be allocated based upon "need" as determined by the political class. [<i>In practice, resources are allocated based upon political considerations, with the most going to those most politically connected</i>.]<br /><br />Karl Marx and his ideological descendents developed the roots of modern collectivism, which then were put into practice either with government or private ownership. In both scenarios, the government actually controls property and individuals, ostensibly for the common good.<br /><br /><b>Socialists</b> believe in collective [<i>viz. government</i>] ownership of the means of production.<br /><br /><b>Fascists</b>, by contrast, tolerate private property, so long as it serves the State. They view private property as an allowance granted by the government and often refer to take-home pay that is not expropriated by the tax collector as a cost to society as a whole. They firmly believe that the State is the people and the people are the State. Therefore, the more powers the State has, the more empowered are the people. [<i>Modern fascists express this as "we are the government" in response to objections to increased power centralized in the government</i>.]<br /><br />Rather than being driven by ideology, fascists think that there is a coterie of Our Betters who are somehow endowed with a certain Wisdom that is unassailable by reason and is superior to popular will -- which must often be thwarted if it cannot be manipulated. That's because the masses have been corrupted by the capitalist bourgeois culture and therefore don't know what's for their own good. They hold that everything belongs to the collective, so they often characterize a tax cut as a "bailout" or a "givaway" while taking from one and redistributing to another is regarded as an "entitlement." One is entitled to anything but their own earnings.<br /><br />Hmm. Any fascists amongst contemporary politicians today?<br /><br />The racism of the German version of fascism was peculiar to early 20th-century Germany [not Italy], but it should be noted that the National Socialist Worker's Party believed that the Jews were not only genetically inferior, but also were a pathogenic bourgeois capitalist element that was economically exploiting the German people.<br /><br /><i>Communism and Fascism are two sides of the same statist, collectivist coin</i>. Their modern descendents are elitist and disdain democracy in favor of a cadre of Philosopher Kings to run our lives because we are too stupid/ignorant. The only difference between the medieval Divine Right of Kings and today's collectivists is that the latter holds that leadership should be selected by political pull rather than birth. Ideological heirs to medieval aristocracy, they share the conviction that the general population should be kept poor, ignorant and disenfranchised.<br /><br />That they characterize themselves as "progressive" is therefore absurd. Their medieval mindset is the very definition of reactionary, because freedom is the most radical idea and the optimal human condition.<br /><br />They are against anything that empowers individuals and for anything that empowers the government, holding that the only true freedom and justice can come from the State. Their modern ideological heirs are diverse in its particular goals, but is united in the proposition that all solutions involve higher taxes and bigger government.<br /><br />They distrust private enterprise and hold that competition should only take place in the political arena as a blood-sport. They consider government spending to be "investment" while monies allocated by private concerns to be greed-motivated exploitation. And greed is only defined as economic aspiration, while lust for political power is not something they like to talk about.<br /><br />This cadre is populated by incorrigibly intolerant True Believers who cannot abide that their conclusions would be subject to question, holding that anyone who disagrees with them are by definition stupid, ill-informed and/or evil.Wal Fordhttps://plus.google.com/116844492046071527335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7707119071509299565.post-80383502678114500442010-08-25T17:21:00.000-04:002010-08-25T17:47:54.499-04:00Hate Crimes Against Muslims: Man Bites DogCommentary by walford<br /><br /><a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://brooklyn.ny1.com/content/news_beats/transit/124368/man-who-allegedly-attacked-taxi-driver-charged-with-hate-crimes/"><b><u>Man Who Allegedly Attacked Taxi Driver Arraigned On Hate Crime Charges</u></b></a><br /><br />This is a man-bites-dog story; it is big news because it's so rare.<br /><br />Yes, a small percentage of practicing Muslims commit acts of terrorism. An even smaller percentage of practitioners of any other religion, spiritual system or non-religion deliberately targets civilians for the purposes of intimidating them to pressure their leaders to change policies to accommodate what is in practice an expansionist political ideology.<br /><br />Let us consider some Venn Diagrams to create:<br /><ul><li>Proportion of terrorist acts by non-Muslims vs. Muslims.</li></ul><ul><li>Proportion of how many times a Muslim is attacked for his faith vs. a Muslim attacking someone for HIS faith being characterized as a "hate crime" by the media and prosecuted as such by Western governments.</li></ul><ul><li>Proportion of Muslims deliberately attacked by other Muslims vs. those perpetrated by non-Muslims.</li></ul><ul><li>Proportion of responsibility given to Westerners who accidentally kill Muslim non-combatants because terrorists are hiding behind them vs. responsibility cast upon their co-religionists who hide behind them.<br /></li></ul><ul><li>Proportion of Western media attention paid to Muslims killed by non-Muslims vs Muslims.</li></ul><ul><li>Proportion of Western media attention paid to such practices as honor killings, female genital mutilations, stonings, lashings, forced child marriages by Muslims in their own countries and in the West vs. how much they actually happen.</li></ul><ul><li>Proportion of Western media attention paid to such practices as hangings, stonings, lashings against homosexuals by Muslims in their own countries and in the West vs. how much they actually happen.</li></ul><ul><li>Proportion of how many times Muslims and their Western apologists qualify condemnation of terrorism with blame upon the West vs. the number of times they condemn it outright.</li></ul><ul><li>Proportion of times mainstream Muslims condemn terrorists who cite Allah as justifying their acts as blasphemy vs. number of times they keep silent.</li></ul><ul><li>Proportion of accommodation Islam gets in the West vs. the amount any other religion gets in any predominantly Muslim country.</li></ul><ul><li>Proportion of accommodation Muslims expect in Western countries vs. the amount of adjustment they are willing to make [e.g., not murdering their daughters who insist upon determining whom they marry] to the host culture.<br /></li></ul>Wal Fordhttps://plus.google.com/116844492046071527335noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7707119071509299565.post-71711137234998159262010-08-18T09:03:00.000-04:002010-08-18T09:17:01.709-04:00Politics, the Environment, the Economy, etc.<a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.blogger.com/profile/11376722006582165016"><b><u>walford</u></b></a><br />[RE: calling Tea Party movement members "tea-baggers"]: I seriously doubt that those who are fond of putting scrotums on people's faces oppose mass-amnesty for people who have entered this country illegally, don't think that we can tax-and-spend our way to recovery or appease our way to security....<br /><br />I think it is possible for intelligent people to have differing opinions without resorting to vulgar characterizations. Indeed, the elitist criticism of the current Tea Party movement strikes me as being very similar to that of the Tories who held similar views of the original Tea Partiers: They are an ignorant rabble who are better off being kept silent and disenfranchised by their Betters in the aristocracy.<hr /><a href="http://www.blogger.com/profile/15063766318588390405"><span style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);"><b><u>Scary Carey</u></b></span></a><br />Then will the non-xenophobic, open-minded Teabaggers please stand up? The majority of assholes in that group are giving the other side all the ammo we need to be convinced they're going to drag this country down into the same pile of shit ...we were in when the country first started. Taxation's the only way we've got of pitching in to improve things around this nation. If we don't get the citizens in on it, and especially the wealthy of that bunch, then how else are we supposed to build a better, stronger America for all? I'm in the impoverished group of this country, but I'm ready to pay some taxes to get things done. Why can't people who make more money than I do also feel the same? It's not everyone for themselves, but that we're all in this together.<br /><br />Not only is legislation critical in this, but we also have to be able to afford such things as implementing renewable energy sources, retraining employees for those jobs, and repairing the damage already done by climate change. There's also a very fundamental change that needs to be made but probably won't happen anytime soon, and that's the idea that we don't need material wealth to be truly happy. So many capitalists are convinced they need this product or that and are having a very dififcult time being truly happy. Ultimately, I can't help those people because they must find their own path. I just know from experience and what I've seen in my own family that stuff doesn't equal happiness. It and the craving for more stuff tend to create a neverending sensation of longing that's never satiated. True happiness comes from the simple things that don't cost a dime and yet are priceless.<br /><br />I believe at this point that 3rd world countries stand a better chance of surviving in the decades to come because they can be so greatly improved in a way that's sustainable and environmentally sound. We've already got so many dams that have disrupted river flows and harmed fish populations, since being able to power our TVs and kitchen appliances and lights is more important than taking care of the rest of the natural world. This is but one example of how American entitlement has led to a very steady decline of the ecosystems that we depend on for our survival. Give me a member of the Tea party that actually gives a shit about this and I'll consider rethinking any derogatory comments I like to make about them. %^)<hr /><a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.blogger.com/profile/11376722006582165016"><b><u>walford</u></b></a><br />Government cannot spread wealth; it can only spread poverty. The purpose of socialism is not to eliminate poverty, it is to eliminate wealth.<br /><br />If a shared poverty is the ideal under a collectivist state, there are other places to enjoy such a... Nirvana. It's been tried time and time again and the result has invariably been the same. Wholesale slaughter. Cataclysmic war. Abject poverty. Brutal oppression.<br /><br />Insofar as the environment is concerned, we can consider regaining our innocence by going back to the upper Paleolithic. We can abolish the internal combustion engine, pesticides, fertilizers, reverting to hunter-gatherer or slash-and-burn agriculture.<br /><br />Bear in mind that this would only sustain a single-digit percentage of the world's current human population. We can look upon Afghanistan under the Taliban as an example to emulate. Their equally valid alternate lifestyle destroyed what little technology they had as most of the population was ignorant, disenfranchised and impoverished.<br /><br />I personally do not find that option attractive, but it could be accomplished by surrendering Western civilization to those are diligently working to destroy it -- such as those who propose to build this mosque where the ashes of their victims once fell.<br /><br />We should indeed keep pollution to a minimum. Great strides have been attained in that regard. I am old enough to remember what it was like when most vehicles were burning leaded gasoline. I remember when everyone agreed that Lake Erie was dead forever.<br /><br />Much work remains to be done and I support it, but not by such double-standard ridden and politically motivated schemes as the Kyoto Protocol.<br /><br />The root cause of all human suffering is tyranny, not freedom. The cause of the current problems isn't too much freedom and not enough government. So long as the cancer of tyranny exists in the world, there will always be war, poverty and injustice.<br /><br />The choice is whether we abide "income disparity" under freedom or "equality" under tyranny.<hr /><a href="http://www.blogger.com/profile/15063766318588390405"><span style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);"><b><u>Scary Carey</u></b></span></a><br />The root of many of our problems is that there really are too many people in the world. There's too much materialism, too much inequality, too much of a lot of things. I don't think we'll ever be able to eradicate war, injustice, or pover...ty because dealing with those concepts is a very human experience. Part of this whole mess we're in right now is not that it's the end of all things and that we should surrender to the inevitable. It's simply that we have a choice to make about how to proceed into the future. Do we learn from the mistakes of the past and improve our ways before it's too late (and time IS running out whether anyone wants to accept it or not)? There are a lot of people who are stuck in the past and who claim that, if it worked for our forefathers, then it's good enough for us. Sure, slavery worked for our forefathers. So did the oppression of women and the native peoples who were here before the pilgrims ever decided to float their unhappy asses over in search of a better life. Our forefathers also thought that hacking down the forests to make room for their homes was good enough for them. Now we know what damage has been done and yet we're still continuing to do more damage as if it doesn't matter. Now we have a chance to do something different and NOT be the same ignorant, closed-minded people that started this nation.<br /><br />Sadly, we already have "income disparity" under so-called freedom. Why are there so many homeless people living on the streets and in shelters, while the select few wealthy continue to drive their fancy cars and invest in oil and coal industries? This current economic way of being is obviously not working for everyone. There are more options than the two you've just mentioned. We can have equality under freedom. This is our government, after all. It doesn't belong to the oil industries or the coal industries. It's of the people, by the people, and for the people. Corporations don't run the show, you and I do. My classmates at Evergreen do. There are people who know what needs to be done and are willing to make the changes necessary, whatever the costs. Why is it, then, that so many others gripe about taxation but expect the government to step in to help out with issues like Katrina and the oil spill? Why are there teabaggers who live on social security and other forms of government aid? Taxation isn't the enemy or a representative of tyranny. It's a way that we all can pitch in to make the improvements that need to be made that will make everyone happier in the long run. If we don't have taxes, then how else are we honestly going to improve a nation that's built on the principle of the almighty dollar? How else are we supposed to be able to afford to make those improvements? Believe me, if I thought we could do it without spending a dime, then I'd be all for it. It just seems to be a horribly imbalanced country when I, an unemployed college graduate and proud liberal, am willing to put forth whatever I can manage in order to help out, while the right-wingers refuse to lift a finger to help. As I said before, it's not everyone for themselves. We are all in this together. <hr /><a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.blogger.com/profile/11376722006582165016"><b><u>walford</u></b></a><br />Birthrates go down as a society modernizes and prospers, which is only possible with freedom. Free people do not make war upon each other. Free people derive the most benefit from other people being free. We cannot appease, contain or other...wise live in peace with tyranny. There is no such thing as a benign tyranny.<br /><br />With all of our technology, we are no less subject to Nature's Laws. Other organisms have overwhelmed their environments and they either changed their ways or Nature took care of it.<br /><br />We therefore have two options: we can embrace and foster freedom for all mankind. Then our race will survive and even prosper. We will handle our environmental problems voluntarily. The other option is to surrender to tyranny and allow most if not all of our species to be wiped out in a series of wars, famines and epidemics that loom so long as tyranny exists anywhere on this planet.<br /><br />Our civilization is going through a dangerous juvenile phase that likely every sentient species experiences wherever they may exist in the universe. We are feeling our power, but still coming to grips with the implications. Too few of us consider whether we have any responsibility for future generations or have a stake in this future. We have high technology, while our governance and social structure -- and spirituality -- has not kept up.<br /><br />Whatever solutions are found, they must follow Nature, not fight Her. What is real, true and just is to be discovered, not made. We cannot force a society to conform to an Utopian ideal just because we wish it can be so.<br /><br />We don't make the rules here.Wal Fordhttps://plus.google.com/116844492046071527335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7707119071509299565.post-13390782081991739292010-08-17T10:28:00.000-04:002010-08-17T13:08:34.928-04:00What of the Price of Strawberries?Commentary by walford<br /><br />If we actually began to enforce existing laws against illegal immigration, let us remember that there are currently 15 million unemployed American Citizens and 12-20 million people here illegally.<br /><br />Basic economics teaches us that if you have a surplus of something, it commands a lower price -- in this case, labor. Americans would indeed be willing to do this kind of work if it paid adequately. As the labor glut is eased, wages across the board would increase and we would all be able to afford these more expensive strawberries that are picked by other Americans.<br /><br />Do we really want to make a case for exploitation by encouraging -- or even tolerating -- employers to hire people who are not covered by our labor laws?<br /><br />Most Americans do not support mass deportation, but they don't support mass amnesty either. A far simpler and economical solution is to remove the incentives. All public assistance should be for U.S. citizens only. Neither should there be drivers licenses, in-state tuition [that actually favors illegals over legal immigrants and U.S. citizens living in other states] nor other rewards for violating our sovereignty.<br /><br />I invite anyone to review <a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2010-05-25-mexico-migrants_N.htm"><u>Mexico's immigration laws</u></a> to see their hypocrisy when criticizing those of the United States.<br /><br />And America is the only country I know of that allows children born to illegal aliens [if you're offended by the term, by all means review <a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://natural-law-natural-religion.blogspot.com/2010/06/border-security-important-terminology.html"><u>my blog</u></a> on this subject] to be considered naturalized citizens. The 14th Amendment was ratified in the aftermath of the Civil War. It was meant to grant full citizenship to former slaves -- not to incentivize pregnant women to risk their lives crossing rivers and deserts.<br /><br />Allowing the United States to serve as a political and economic safety valve not only causes problems here, it also perpetuates the corruption -- and resultant poverty -- in their home countries that drove them here in the first place.<br /><br />If you subsidize something, you tend to get more of it.<br /><br />The federal government is essentially nullifying its Constitutional responsibility by refusing to enforce our national sovereignty and protect our citizens from terrorists, drug gangs, human traffickers and economic refugees.<br /><br />Elites in the Republican Party are complicit because they are beholden to commercial interests that are addicted to cheap, exploitable labor. Elites in the Democrat Party are complicit because they hope to buy their votes with taxpayer-funded benefits. Also a certain cadre welcomes the fact that these people come from places where questioning authority is hazardous to your health.<br /><br />And ordinary people on both sides of the border pay the price.Wal Fordhttps://plus.google.com/116844492046071527335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7707119071509299565.post-28758502068301541112010-08-17T10:02:00.000-04:002010-08-17T11:01:24.457-04:00Mosque at Ground ZeroCommentary by walford<br /><br />Let us bear in mind that Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf is a <a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2010/06/islamic-supremacist-911-mega-mosque-imam-raufs-muslim-leader-of-the-future-hater-antisemite-jihadist.html"><u>Holocaust denier</u></a>, refuses to classify HAMAS as a terrorist organization, blames the West for all Islamic terrorism, is a leader of a group that preaches murdering homosexuals and subjugating women, etc.<br /><br />The name for this site, "<a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://www.urbanelephants.com/index.php/component/content/article/64/2700.html"><u>Cordoba House</u></a>" is telling. Córdoba was the seat of the Umayyad Caliphate's outpost established in Spain when the Muslims conquered, Islamicized and added Iberia to an empire that expanded by force. As someone of partial Spanish descent, I find this to be particularly offensive.<br /><br />Will this mosque 600 yds away from Ground Zero usher in a new age of multiculturalist Nirvana? Let us quote from the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him):<br /><br />"When you meet your enemies who are polytheists, invite them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, you also accept it and withold yourself from doing them any harm. Invite them to (accept) Islam; if they respond to you, accept it from them and desist from fighting against them. . . . If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them." (Sahih Muslim, book 019, Number 4294)<br /><br />For those who value freedom and pluralism, to invite those who preach intolerance and <a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255);" href="http://the-big-pic.org/extext.html"><u>Theological Exclusivism</u></a> to have a place celebrating their expansionist political ideology on the site where the ashes of their victims fell is beyond unconscionable.<br /><br />Having studied their culture and religion extensively, I cannot stress strongly enough how allowing a mosque at this location will be interpreted in the Islamic world. It will be taken as a sign of surrender on our part and that their conquest is Divinely Blessed.<br /><br />To expect Western-style negotiation and compromise from them therefore is dangerously naive. It is a one-way street with them because Islam has yet to undergo a Reformation. There is a reason why synagogues or churches in Islamic countries are few and far between.Wal Fordhttps://plus.google.com/116844492046071527335noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7707119071509299565.post-16311177180309642942010-08-06T11:32:00.000-04:002010-08-06T11:57:54.103-04:00Ayn Rand: Serial Killer Admirer?This allegation apparently originated on Alternet and is being regurgitated around many Leftist blogs, as well as a few religious ones that resent her rejection of organized religion.<br /><br /><i><u><b style="color: rgb(51, 51, 255);"><a href="http://www.alternet.org/story/145819/">Ayn Rand, Hugely Popular Author and Inspiration to Right-Wing Leaders, Was a Big Admirer of Serial Killer</a></b></u><br />Her works are treated as gospel by right-wing powerhouses like Alan Greenspan and Clarence Thomas, but Ayn Rand found early inspiration in 1920's murderer William Hickman.</i><br /><hr />Commentary by walford<br /><br />Simma down na, babe. If you Google the quote "Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should" you will find plenty of places pouncing on this supposed admiration.<br /><br />I was concerned about this and, unlike those who were looking for something to justify their pre-existing hatred, did some research.<br /><br />That and the other 'damning' quotes were lifted from the <i>Journals of Ayn Rand</i> in reference to an unpublished novel she was researching. She was developing a character who was a "Hickman with a purpose. And without the degeneracy. It is more exact to say that the model is not Hickman, but what Hickman suggested to me."<br /><br />The words of praise she offered was not of Hickman but of a character that had some elements of Hickman in him -- NOT of Hickman himself.<br /><br />Another quote is always left out from the anti-Rand blogs referring to it, because it further puts the quote into context: "The first thing that impresses me about the case is the ferocious rage of a whole society against one man. No matter what the man did, there is always something loathsome in the 'virtuous' indignation and mass-hatred of the 'majority.'... It is repulsive to see all these beings with worse sins and crimes in their own lives, virtuously condemning a criminal."<br /><br />I have to agree with her. When you see a mob piling on or an individual condemning a heinous act so vociferously, I begin to suspect an element of voyeurism and/or that the person is trying to reassure others -- and himself -- that he would NEVER do such a thing.Wal Fordhttps://plus.google.com/116844492046071527335noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7707119071509299565.post-27782260108266416072010-08-04T11:05:00.000-04:002010-08-04T11:10:05.641-04:00Recovery: Spin vs. RealityRE: This article:<br /><br /><a style="color: rgb(51, 102, 255); href="http://thetruthwins.com/archives/40-bizarre-statistics-that-reveal-the-horrifying-truth-about-the-collapse-of-the-u-s-economy"><i><b><u>40 Bizarre Statistics That Reveal The Horrifying Truth About The Collapse Of The U.S. Economy</i></b></u></a><br /><br />Commentary by walford<br /><br />Of course things are getting worse. We are being given more of the poison that got us here in the first place.<br /><br />We are being told that what caused this mess was too much freedom and not enough government. We are not being taxed enough. Capital is more efficiently allocated by Barney Frank rather than Bill Gates.<br /><br />Their agenda is not based upon reason, thus no amount of evidence will disabuse them. When confronted with the obvious fact that their policies are not working, they say that they would if government had even wider powers.<br /><br />They blame others for their failures and say -- without being challenged by the media to substantiate their claim -- that if their tax-and-spend policies had not been enacted, things would be worse.<br /><br />The only thing that stands between us and ruination is the American people themselves. They know this and are doing everything they can to silence and marginalize the majority. They are even trying to demographically overwhelm us with people who come from places where questioning authority is hazardous to your health.<br /><br />This is a war. A war of survival.Wal Fordhttps://plus.google.com/116844492046071527335noreply@blogger.com0